Obama cruises to easy Mississippi victory, six-week slog to Pennsylvania begins

By any reasonable measure, last week wasn’t Barack Obama’s best ever. He lost primaries in Ohio, Texas, and Rhode Island; he lost his top foreign policy advisor; and his intention of ending the nominating contest fell far short. Hillary Clinton narrowed Obama’s lead among pledged delegates by about 10, and claimed a new sense of momentum.

But Obama’s fortunes have turned around a bit of late. He won a landslide in the Wyoming caucuses over the weekend, with 61% support, and cruised to an easy victory in the Mississippi primary yesterday, winning by an almost identical margin.

Senator Barack Obama won Mississippi’s Democratic presidential primary on Tuesday, building his delegate lead over Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in the final contest before the nominating fight heads to Pennsylvania for a six-week showdown. […]

After a frenzied string of primaries and caucuses for more than two months, Mississippi was alone in holding its contest Tuesday, where 33 delegates were at stake. It was the last primary before a six-week interlude. The Pennsylvania primary on April 22 opens the final stage of the Democratic nominating fight, with eight states, Puerto Rico and Guam left to weigh in.

Mississippi offered Mr. Obama an opportunity to regain his footing after losing the popular vote to Mrs. Clinton last week in three contests, Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island. Mr. Obama had been expected to win resoundingly in Mississippi, a state where 36 percent of the population is black, the highest percentage in the nation. He has enjoyed strong support among black voters and won all the other contests in the Deep South by large margins.

With just about all the votes counted, Obama won with 61% of the vote, to Clinton’s 37%. More importantly, Obama walks out of Mississippi with a net gain of seven delegates. Combined with Wyoming’s results, Obama has already erased the delegate gains Clinton made on March 4.

So, what made the difference? Let’s look at the various tidbits from the exit polls:

* Gender: Obama won 61% of men and 58% of women. That’s going to lead to a pretty good day.

* Race: It’s fair to say this was an important factor in Mississippi. 91% of African-American voters backed Obama, while 72% of white voters backed Clinton.

* Age: There continues to be a striking age gap between the candidates. Despite Obama’s landslide win, Clinton still won a majority of voters 60 and older.

* Income: Obama won every income group except those making more than $75,000, who preferred Clinton.

* Honesty: Here’s a surprising one. 70% of Mississippi voters said Obama is honest and trustworthy. Only 52% said the same about Clinton.

* Commander-in-Chief test: Voters preferred Obama to Clinton by 10 points on this question, 53% to 43%.

* Republicans: Is Rush Limbaugh’s strategy catching on? 13% of voters in the Democratic primary identified themselves as Republicans, and they overwhelmingly backed Clinton over Obama, 78% to 22%.

* VP: 6 in 10 Obama backers said that he should select Clinton for the ticket if he won the nomination, while 4 in 10 Clinton supporters said she should choose Obama if he she won.

And with that, the long slog to Pennsylvania begins — its primary is six long weeks from yesterday.

* VP: 6 in 10 Obama backers said that he should select Clinton for the ticket if he won the nomination, while 4 in 10 Clinton supporters said she should choose Obama if he she won.

I wish an Obama surrogate would announce that Obama has no interest in taking what would be the number three position in a Hillary Clinton administration. Especially when his major job would probably be to keep Bill from causing any more bimbo eruptions.

  • I can’t help pointing out, he did win Texas. This brings it to a total of 3 states that she “won” but really either tied (New Hampshire) or lost (Nevada, Texas) – and if we’re going to start bleating about the popular vote vs delegates, he’s leading in both overall.
    I’ve got a great ad Obama’s campaign (or SNL) could use: the Monty Python “Bring out your dead” sketch, only with Hillary slung over Obama’s shoulder crowing “I feel happy! I feel Happy!”

  • No surrogate needed: Obama himself announced that in pretty plain terms the past three days, and Pelosi even more bluntly said there would be no “dream ticket” in either order.

    I actually found that poll result surprising, however, in that Clinton is pushing a Dream Ticket that her supporters dont want and Obama is rejecting a Dream Ticket that his supporters do want. Odd disconnect.

    I am a Clinton supporter, and long have been, but these next six weeks are just too rife with danger for the party. If the Supers are going to do anything decisive, for either candidate (and I say this knowing it is likely to be for Obama if they intervene) the time really is now.

    (By the way, CB, I think you give Limbaugh too much credit. I’m not sure 13% of any state population listens to that blowhard.)

  • ChicagoPat – then lets be consistent: the headlines that she came in “third” in Iowa really hurt her from the start, but by your approach, she came in second because she beat Edwards in delegates.

    No matter who wins or loses, and no matter what one’s view on proportional representation generally, the high number of instances in this nomination season where the popular vote and the delegate count ended up having virtually no discernable relationship to each other (and there are examples of each of the top three candidates coming out ahead and behind due to this phenomenon) is problematic and looks very undemocratic. The Dems need to seriously look at nomination reform.

  • Also note that Obama appears to have won the Texas caucuses, and will walk away with more pledged delegates from Texas than Clinton. I think this deserves a post of its own as it calls into question Clinton’s claim to have “won” Texas.

  • Oops, ChicagoPat beat me to that point. Oh well– I think it’s worth emphasizing.

  • I’m eagerly awaiting a Clinton announcement that the results in Mississippi don’t count, first because the state is full of Obama supporters, second because how can you take seriously a state that has “pp” in its name, and third because it isn’t Ohio.

  • I would like to correct Senator Obama’s winning states.

    Senator Obama did not lose in Texas. He won the caucus . The Clintons did not win in Texas as they lost the caucus.

  • Tagging onto ChicagoPat’s comment (2), I get furious when people talk about “the overall popular vote.” Three states (Iowa, Nevada and Maine) did not release these numbers. So approximately 400,000 voters are being ignored when these nationwide numbers are used. Also in the early caucuses, people who voted for Edwards, Richardson, and Biden were sometimes given a second choice and sometimes not, depending on the viability in their precincts. By Super Tuesday this was not an issue.

  • You’ll probably get to this later, but Florida Democrats have come out against a revote:

    http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/house_dems_in_florida_no_redo.php

    They’re insisting that the results of the too-early primary be honored.

    Except there are no valid results because there was no contested election. All the candidates forfeited beforehand, including Clinton.

    Logistical issues aside, a revote would make FL and MI more influential now.

  • If the supers don’t step up and end this thing by declaring their commitment to the candidate who wins the most elected delegates at the end of the process (essentially blowing out Hillary’s small candle), then they are, in effect, carrying out a party suicide pact.

    Hillary Clinton’s strategy is transparent. Attack Obama in any way that will make McCain a preferrable candidate to him. The race-baiting and c-in-c threshold stuff is all part of her attempt to make McCain seem favorable to Obama in the polls so that the supers would have no choice but to pick her. If she risks losing the nomination and hurting Obama in the process, then so be it.

    Seriously. It’s time for the supers to step up. Today.

  • Mark Pencil:

    [the] nomination season where the popular vote and the delegate count ended up having virtually no discernable relationship to each other … is problematic and looks very undemocratic

    It kills me when people say this. The US may be a democracy, but the democratic party is not. I submit that the purpose of the nominating process is to select the candidate with the highest probability of winning the general election. And in determining the most probable winner, there is more to consider than merely popular vote, mostly because of the dynamics of the electoral college. Also important are strategic concerns, such as the historical R/D competitiveness of a particular state (which should warrant more influence commensurate with relative voter turnout in the nomination process).

    Delegates may not be the best way to account for these factors, but it is at least one way. But just counting the popular vote just ignores these, and it probably almost as bad as the republican nominating process.

  • Obama supporters say the damdest things like Obama won Nevada and Texas. In states that actually vote Obama won because of large AA voters. In caucuses he won mostly because of college students. Except for WI can anyone name a state that actually voted that AA were not at least 40% of the turnout? I know you can’t so it doesn’t matter.

  • Yeah, since to participate in the Texas caucuses, you had to vote earlier, it basically means caucus goers get two votes. That’s so weird. Caucuses are weird enough, but…

    Funny how Obama can’t play nice about the dream ticket, tho.

  • 2 things:

    1) An exit poll question I’d like to see asked:

    “If the candidate you voted for today gets the nomination, do you intend to vote for that candidate in November?”

    2) Samantha Power rated over Zbigniew Brzezinski as an Obama foreign policy advisor?

  • I still don’t get the Commander-in-Chief test. How many times, during her eight years as first lady, did Hillary answer the red phone or even see it? Also, the military she knew from back then are either fired by the Shrub or they’re toadies (MOS).

  • Comeback Bill: Do I see a new metric? Are you part of Hillary Clinton’s Jim Crow outreach team? Are you seriously saying that states where a lot of black people vote don’t count?

    Crissa: If you think Obama hasn’t been playing nice and that Hillary has, then I shudder at your complete lack of any kind of judgment.

  • Combined with Wyoming’s results, Obama has already erased the delegate gains Clinton made on March 4.

    Actually, it’s even worse for Clinton. Because those states are no longer in play, mathematically she has to win all remaining contests by even bigger double-digit margins in order to capture both the popular vote and a delegate majority.

  • If Obama gets the nomination for the democratic party I see a big loss in the future for democrats because instead of PA, NJ and AR being most likely voting democratic they very probabally go to McCain. John Kerry only won 51/49 in PA and NJ and Obama couldn’t carry AR whereas Hillary could. Forget FL and OH.

  • Ref #18

    Thats not what I’m saying at all. SC, AL, MS, GA and NC are more than likely going Republican. VA is 50/50. MD and DC will go democratic. My point being is that most of the states Barack has won will almost definately go Republican in November. And if we democrats don’t win in FL, OH, PA or NY then we can’t win.

  • Almost any democrat will wim MA, NY, Conn and CA. Look at the states that democrats typically win and they are not in the south.

  • Comeback Bill:
    Obama supporters say the damdest things like Obama won Nevada and Texas. In states that actually vote Obama won because of large AA voters. In caucuses he won mostly because of college students. Except for WI can anyone name a state that actually voted that AA were not at least 40% of the turnout? I know you can’t so it doesn’t matter.

    1-Missouri
    2-Connecticut
    3-Illinois
    4-Vermont
    5-Maryland (A-A was 37% of the vote per cnn exit poll data)
    6-Wisconsin
    7-Virginia (per cnn exit polls, A-A vote was only 30% of the population, and Obama won the white vote 52-47)
    8-Utah (which was, yes, a a primary)
    9-Delaware (which was only 28% A-A per cnn again)

    Now, it should come as a surprise to nobody that Comeback Bill just made some shit up, hoped it was true, and it turns out, he couldn’t be more wrong!

    But I thought I’d demonstrate it, just for fun

    9 primaries Obama won with less than 40% of the voting population as African-American.

  • Speaking of exit polls, looks like 50% of the voters in the primary were African American, of which 92% voted for Obama, yet he only won with 61% of the vote.

    Not that any of this really matters, Mississippi will go to McCain in November anyhow as yet again Obama pulls in a win in a very RED state.

    If people would please keep from making racist remarks, I’d like to start a discussion about what this means going forward. I think that this can be seen as an undercurrent in the momentum and may be a trend going forward.

    We’ve already seen the blacks go roughly 90% for Obama for a long time now, so race has had a lot to do with this contest since the beginning, or else somebody explain how else this could have happened (please try).

    Anyhow,, for a while there after Feb. 5th, several white people were backing Obama as well, but the numbers don’t lie and now it appears he is losing the white vote. If that is the case, and this trend continues (yes I said continues, this started in Ohio & Texas), then Clinton will win most if not all of the remaining contests.

  • If Obama gets the nomination for the democratic party I see a big loss in the future…

    You see what you want to see, but the polls tell us otherwise…unless Clinton gets her way and sends independents and Republicans to McCain by continuing to race-bait and continuing to assert that McCain is more qualified than Obama.

    Hillary doesn’t care about the country…she doesn’t care about the party…she only cares about Hillary.

  • Greg: You should take this act on the road. A 23 point margin showing how Obama’s losing momentum?

    Pure gold.

    Comeback Bill: Kerry won NJ 53-46. The Google is your friend.

  • Thats not what I’m saying at all. SC, AL, MS, GA and NC are more than likely going Republican. VA is 50/50. MD and DC will go democratic. My point being is that most of the states Barack has won will almost definately go Republican in November. And if we democrats don’t win in FL, OH, PA or NY then we can’t win.

    Actually, Obama’s won a host of swing states, including (but not limited to) Washington, Iowa, Missouri, Colorado, and Virginia. Further, if you’re suggesting Obama can’t win NY, I suspect you might actually be functionally retarded.

    And lastly, as others have noted at length, there’s a logical fallacy involved in suggesting that because such-and-such person lost a state in a Dem primary, they are somehow weaker there in the general. Do you think Clinton will have trouble winning Connecticut in the GE? Neither do I; the suggestion is ludicrous. The pool of voters the two of them will be appealing to in the GE isn’t just bigger, it’s also fundamentally different, and the choices those voters are given are also different. Just because white, working class, rust-belt, Dem voters prefer Clinton to Obama by large margins does not mean they would also prefer McCain by large margins. Just b/c those voters prefer Clinton does not mean the same demograph except as political independents would prefer Clinton over Obama. etc etc.

    So please. Can the bullshit.

  • We’ve already seen the blacks go roughly 90% for Obama for a long time now, so race has had a lot to do with this contest since the beginning…

    Wrong.

    At the beginning, black support was polling heavily for Clinton over Obama — until Hillary’s campaign started race-baiting. Her team is still race-baiting to this day, specifically so that ignorant people like Greg can make the argument that Obama is the “black” candidate and therefore cannot win. By picking up this silly argument and taking it to the blogs, Greg has demonstrated that the Clinton strategy is having an effect. Brilliant.

  • Anyhow,, for a while there after Feb. 5th, several white people were backing Obama as well, but the numbers don’t lie and now it appears he is losing the white vote. If that is the case, and this trend continues (yes I said continues, this started in Ohio & Texas), then Clinton will win most if not all of the remaining contests.

    Yeah, there’s no way that being in the South or the Rust Belt could’ve had anything to do with it! Because we havent seen this before in the South or the Rust Belt! This is very likely to translate to Oregon! Or border states like North Carolina!

    Wait…no its not.

    Look, it’s simple: Obama and Clinton have different regional appeals. The mid-west/prairie states, mountain west, and pac north west vastly prefer Obama to Clinton, whites, blacks, asians, and hispanics.

    Clinton does better among the more-baptist white voters in the south and the rust belt, but lots of those states have large A-A populations that counter-act those effects.

    Now, we can pretend that the South and the RustBelt are the only regions of the US that exists, but that would be stupid and/or crazy. And we could pretend that there are no differences between white voters from different regions (northwest v south eg), or even state-to-state or urban-v-suburban-v-rural…but that would also be either stupid or crazy. And once you get to make, you know, some actual distinctions, this is nothing new

    Also, Obama actually grabbed 44% of the white vote in Texas, so no, it is not apart of your imagined “trend”, Greg. And he tied Clinton among all voters under-60…once again, it was the old folks (mainly old women, I imagine, based on similar past results) that won it for Hillary in Texas; that or her margins with Hispanics

  • June C @ 28

    Race baiting? Are you serious? It was Obama & his followers who played the race card.

    Racism is not something that someone should be accused of so quickly, for example, you should not call me a racist for my post, I clearly did not say “Obama is the “black” candidate and therefore cannot win“, yet this is what you quoted me as saying.

    I personally feel that the Clintons were treated in the very same way, without truly saying things that were actually racist and being taken out of context, and yet the race card was played and the sympathy went to Obama.

  • Racism is not something that someone should be accused of so quickly…

    I agree…I didn’t come to this conclusion quickly…it took me a while.

    Distributing the Kenya picture, darkening Obama’s face in a flyer, comparing Obama’s campaign to Jesse Jackson’s, surrogates spout his middle name repeatedly, he a Christian “as far as I know”, surrogates bringing up his drug use in college, surrogates saying that he’s only as successful as he is because of color and supporters like you saying that he can’t win the white vote, etcetera…add it all up…and it’s race-bating.

    I don’t believe the Clinton campaign set out to lose the black vote. But when they screwed the pooch in SC, they decided to turn the loss into a win by defining Obama as the “black” candidate. So, when supporters like Greg spout the lie that he can’t win white votes, he’s picking up the race-baiting ball and running with it.

    Fortunately, most voters aren’t the racists that Hillary and supporters like Greg want them to be.

  • What Hillary Clinton said was that rhetoric alone could not achieve the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Martin Luther King was a tremedous influence on Civil Rights in this country, and she did not deny that or repudiate it. What she did say was that it also took the contribution of someone with the knowledge of the system and the ability to manipulate it ( LBJ) to achieve
    that goal in reality. (Read Caro’s “Master of the Senate” to appreciate what it took to pass this legislation. The Obama supporters, not Obama, took issue with this and turned it into something else, hence they did the race-baiting.

  • Liza @ 25

    You seem to have this personal hatred for Clinton, it’s really disturbing. Would you not fight with everything you had in order to win if you believed in something so much?

    Clinton & Obama both care about this country very much, and both spend every moment of their time working to restore our economy, our pride, and our standing in the world.

    Obama preaches his message of hope, and Hillary lays out her plans for the future and highlights accomplishments which prove that the Clinton’s know how to get things done.

    These are 2 very different messages, but only one of them can bring in the votes of those who want their leader to be experienced.

    Do you know who has way more support among Generals, Admirals, and other career military folks? It’s Clinton of course.. do you not think this matters to people who are independants likely to be swayed by fear mongering by Republicans in the fall? Remember, we are involved in 2 wars already.

    Hillary wants to win because she feels that she is better equipped to beat McCain in the fall, not because she is some monster who doesn’t care about America, but because Republicans haven’t even begun their attacking, which will make Clinton’s campaigning look mild. Grow up.

  • 30. Greg said: Racism is not something that someone should be accused of so quickly, for example, you should not call me a racist for my post, I clearly did not say “Obama is the “black” candidate and therefore cannot win“, yet this is what you quoted me as saying.

    You have found a thousand ways of saying black votes and voters don’t count. Sounds like racism to me whether you intend it that way or not.

  • Whether the “Hillistines” like it or not, a six-week slog to Pennsylvania is perfect for Obama. Clinton’s slurs and deceits only have a lifespan of three or four days—and right now, there are 41 full days BEFORE the primary (although I’m sure the “comeback shill” crowd will declare at least 35 of those days to be irrelevant).

    Six weeks—plenty of time to do some serious “Hillistine smiting.”

    Pass the scimitars and battle-axes, please….

  • Obama supporters say the damdest things like Obama won Nevada and Texas. -Comeback Bill

    Delegates matter, and Obama won more of them in those states, or do you dispute that?

    What is your criteria for ‘winning?’ That seems to be the hang up here.

    I consider delegates of ‘primary’ importance (pun intended), and popular vote secondary.

    So if there is a tie in delegates, then check the popular vote (or state delegate count for a caucus).

  • 33. Greg said: You seem to have this personal hatred for Clinton, it’s really disturbing. Would you not fight with everything you had in order to win if you believed in something so much?

    NO!!!! The end does not justify any means necessary. It just doesn’t, that is a slippery slope that leads to absolutely any atrocity imaginable in the wrong circumstances. You say Hillary believes in something and is just fighting for that. I don’t see it, I see someone who only believes in her own personal right to power and says anything she wants to get it. If she is so sure that McCain should be beaten then why does she keep saying how qualified he is to lead the country? I’m not sure if she is a “monster” or not, but she sure does sound like a narcissist with no true moral compass.

  • NO!!!! The end does not justify any means necessary. -Shalimar

    Well said.

    Her ‘tactics’ are ever more despicable when one considers the reality that she has no shot of securing the nomination, without using ‘Rovian math,’ at this point. She’s damaging the nominee and the Party with absolutely nothing to gain.

  • Look, there’s a simple point some people are making. It’s this:

    Right now, one of 3 people will be our next President. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or John McCain. Barack Obama is the front-runner no doubt to win it all. Now, obviously, Hillary would prefer it that she, not he, be President. And she’s pursuing a strategy that she believes increases her chances.

    Now, here’s the rub: at some point in time, and at some level of attacks, the concern for her own chances of being President have to be counter-balanced by her concern for who would win she she not take the Presidency. That is, part of her calculation ought to be, “I really want to win this, BUT I also want to make sure I don’t jeopardize Dem chances of winning the White House overall”

    To many of us, the point in time has come and gone where those types of contravening concerns would make her tone down her campaign; instead, the evidence suggests that she’s decided she doesn’t care who becomes President if it’s not her. Either that or she genuinely thinks John McCain would be a better President than Barack Obama. And either options speaks poorly to her character and, IMO, fitness to be head of the Democratic party.

    Because the reality of the situation is this: short of some sort of scandal (Obama is a pedophile or some such thing), she’s not winning this nomination. He’s already got nearly a million vote lead on her (I think, w/ caucuses, it’s up to 800,000 now). He’s already got a pledged delegate lead that she can’t come back on with her current coalition, given the states still left to vote. And the supers have been breaking for him heavily for a month now and show no signs of stopping.

    And if there was any doubt after Texas/Ohio and the 3am ad, only an earth-shattering scandal is going to dissuade the mid-west and pac. nw voters, African-American voters, young voters, etc, that Obama isn’t the right choice. And only such a scandal would persuade supers to abandon Obama or stop breaking for him heavily at this point. And that’s it. That’s what her strategy amounts to at this point: hang around as long as possible in the hopes that Obama stumbles into some huge scandal, or even maybe provoke him into saying something so unbelievably bad it goes from “gaffe” to “scandal” level.

    Not only is that a pretty piss-poor rationale to stay in the race, but as we see from, say, Ferraro’s attempts to ghetto-ize Obama, it’s not really good for the party or the likely nominee to have high-level party members actively trying to kill his appeal in advance of the general, let alone keeping him from spending the GOP presumptive nominee into the ground.

    The first step is removing yourself from the fantasy world in which Clinton can get more votes or pledged delegates; she can’t. The second step is realizing that the supers would only override those advantages in the event that Obama became unbelievably politically toxic. And the last step is realizing that it’s not good for the party or the country for that matter to be raising the possibility that Obama becomes politically toxic.

    And that’s why so many people want Clinton out of the race.

    We could have Obama spending McCain into the ground right now in all sorts of swing states: PA, NC, CO, IA, MO, MI…we could. Instead, we have high-level Dems trashing our likely nominee on all the news networks and, soon, in an important swing state.

    That’s a big difference. And for what? Just so Clinton might have a very-small chance at the nomination should Obama magically turn into Al Sharpton? That’s stupid. And it’s certainly no good to be going around actively trying to convince people he already is Al Sharpton.

  • How about the Monty Python scene where the kinight keeps saying, ‘C’mon I’ll fight ya!(or somesuch)’ as he keeps losing body parts, until he is just a head in the road still saying it?

  • Is Rush Limbaugh’s strategy catching on? 13% of voters in the Democratic primary identified themselves as Republicans, and they overwhelmingly backed Clinton over Obama, 78% to 22%.

    But Mary insisted the Republicans were voting for Obama! Because he was the weaker candidate!

    Surely, Mary’s not an idiot?

  • Michael (39)—if she cannot win this year, she’ll likely want to begin establishing her plans for 2012. Who better to do that against but McCain?

  • Steve@42

    IMHO, this is her only shot. If Obama gets the nod & loses to McBush, she will take some of the blame, especially if, and when, McB uses her assessments of Obama. I admit 2012 is a hard call. Who knows what horrors McB could unleash on the world in 4 years? Its a pop psychology stereotype but warrior John may want payback on the American people for abandoning Vietnam and thus negating the value of his suffering.

  • There was also a question asked in the exit poll about if their pick didn’t get the nomination, would they be happy with the other candidate? Something like 6 in 10 of his said yes, and 4 in 10 of hers said yes. That I think, shows how toxic her CinC threshold quote is,the 3am phone call and Ms Ferraro’s statements came in to play. She’s damaged him in the eyes of her own voters. He hasn’t gone negative on her and that’s why she isn’t as damaged to his voters. (Maybe it’s nothing she’s done and it is just white Mississippians own prejudices.)

    And it’s also quite odd that while she’s the one pushing for “the dream team”, her voters don’t like it, but his are ok with it.

    Anyway, if one of you guys can explain the disconect to me, I’d surely appreciate it.

  • Do you remember year 2000, Al Gore, Florida and the “insider” Jeb Bush?

    There cannot be any question that the last person the Republicans want to see in the White House is Hillary Clinton. The “Right thing To do” would be to draw a thick red line back to Florida and the Bush family interference. After all Al Gore was the candidate who got the most votes.

    Electing Mrs Clinton to the White House would be payback time to the Republicans, – more than anything else. Electing Mr. Obama would not send the same message to the Rebulicans.

    Politics is not building bridges. It is also about sending a message to your opponent.

  • Politics is not building bridges. It is also about sending a message to your opponent. -Pete Hagerup

    Actually, it’s about governing the country. It is not a game, like you’re implying, and even if it were, what better message to send to the opponent of progress then building a coalition that leaves them behind in the dust.

    Actively engaging them in their bitter game is exactly what they want, but not playing their game scares the hell out of them.

  • “Electing Mrs Clinton to the White House would be payback time to the Republicans, – more than anything else. Electing Mr. Obama would not send the same message to the Rebulicans.

    Politics is not building bridges. It is also about sending a message to your opponent.”

    This is true. But the message the Democrats need to be sending is not that they are willing to dig in for a decade of trench warfare. It’s serving notice that the country is turning away from the Republican message and that anyone the Democrats don’t defeat in 2008 will be a target in 2010.

    The way to send the message is to start reeling in the red states one by one. Iowa, Colorado, Virginia, and Nevada are just the first dominoes to fall. Kansas, Nebraska and Texas will be next, and if Obama can’t manage to win Alabama and Mississippi, the Democrats will find someone who will.

    Over the top? Maybe, but this is exactly what the Republicans were saying at the peak of their power in 2002 and 2004. They knocked out Tom Daschle to send a message to the rest of the Democrats in the Senate and it took. The Republicans were able to pass an increasingly unpopular platform even after losing the actual house, because they made many Democrats afraid to stand in their way. And they pushed to win bigger shares of the vote in places like New Jersey and Hawaii in 2004, even though they couldn’t win, because it paid dividends to make Kerry seem like he was on the defensive.

  • Hillary Clinton… We will fight you in the streets… we will fight you in the hills … we will fight you everywhere !

    -Democratic Grass Roots – Organizing against Clinton’s – Campaign against America.

    We will FIGHT YOU Everywhere !

    EVERYWHERE !

  • Hillary went from a privileged child to President’s wife to Senator. Obama went from being child of an unwed immigrant, raised by a single mother, paid his own way thru college, studied constitutional law, graduated Magna Cum Laude, turned down a position as clerk for Supreme Court to become a community organizer, elected to state senate and served 8 years b4 becoming US senator. He has MORE experience than Clinton. She is a member of the aristocracy, he is one of us- vote for your own kind!

    Thank You Mississippi

  • Comments are closed.